تسجيل الدخول

تسجيل

ANOTHER ISSUE WITH LABORATORY REPORTS: RECORDING THE ANALYSIS

المؤلف:  Max M. Houck، Jay A. Siegel

المصدر:  Fundamentals of Forensic Science

الجزء والصفحة:  p639-640

2026-09-10

22

ANOTHER ISSUE WITH LABORATORY REPORTS: RECORDING THE ANALYSIS

There are many situations where a scientist is called to the stand to testify about the methods, procedures, results, and conclusions concerning a particular case. If the trial occurs shortly after the evidence was analyzed, then the scientist should remember analyzing the evidence and should be able to testify directly from memory. The laboratory report then serves to memorialize the analysis. Suppose, however, that the trial occurs months or even years after the evidence was analyzed. Unless that particular case was very unusual and stood out for some reason, then it is unlikely that the scientist will remember the particulars of the case or even having analyzed it! In such cases, there are two legal precepts that can come into play: the first is past recollection refreshed. In these cases, the scientist is testifying in court and is asked by the prosecutor if he or she remembers doing the analysis on the evidence. If the answer is “no” then the prosecutor will show the report to the scientist and will ask if the report refreshes his or her memory about doing the analysis. If so, then the scientist can testify from memory about the analysis. What happens, however, if the scientist can still not remember the case? Then the second precept comes into play: past recollection recorded. In this case, the laboratory report becomes the crucial evidence. Presumably it contains all of the information needed to explain what was done, how it was done, and the results and conclusions of the analysis. In this case, the scientist will be asked if the laboratory report represents standard operating procedures in cases such as this. For example, if the case involves the routine analysis of a white powder and the conclusion is that cocaine is present, are the methods and procedures used the ones that are used every time this type of evidence is analyzed? Are the data the same? Are the results and conclusions consistent with other cases of this type? There is nothing inherently wrong with this type of testimony. It is quite common. It illustrates the importance of having a complete laboratory report available since it is the only “memory” of the case.